W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2009

RE: sanity checking the LOD Cloud statistics

From: Michal Finkelstein <michal.finkelstein@thomsonreuters.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 03:37:29 -0400
To: Ted Thibodeau Jr <tthibodeau@openlinksw.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Message-ID: <8EEEDC024FDB094881625DF050803C9BF00B47@HPGSMSXM02.amers.ime.reuters.com>
Hi Ted,

First, I totally agree with the need to change the current (relatively
arbitrary) levels.
Values like > 100 and even > 100,000 seem a bit anachronistic; I guess
these ranges were valid in the very first days of the LOD Cloud, but
today, for the most part, we're talking about millions of URIs, triples

Two significant errors I see related to OpenCalais:

 Open Calais  DBpedia   >  100
 Open Calais  Freebase  >  100  

The correct number should be > 100,000 for both OpenCalais-to-DBpedia
and OpenCalais-to-Freebase link counts.
To make sure we're on the same page: that's larger than one hundred

Also regarding the size of the data set:

 OpenCalais   4,500,000

The number shown actually refers to the URI count and not to the number
of triples.	
The number of triples is at least 10 times bigger, or: 45,000,000
(that's 45 million triples).


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* * *
Michal Finkelstein
Director, Content Strategy
The Calais Initiative

Thomson Reuters


-----Original Message-----
From: public-lod-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Ted Thibodeau Jr
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 9:06 AM
To: public-lod@w3.org
Subject: sanity checking the LOD Cloud statistics

Hello, all --

I've had a few minutes to start working to update my version [1] of the
LOD Cloud diagram [2], which means I got to start looking at the Data
Set Statistics [3] and Link Statistics [4] pages.

I have found a number of apparent discrepancies.  I'm not sure where
these came from, but I think they need attention and correction.

[3] gave some round, and some exact values.  It's not at all clear
whether these values were originally intended to reflect triple-counts
in the data set, URIs minted there (i.e., Entities named there), or
something else entirely.  I think the page holds a mix of these, which
makes them rather troublesome as a source of comparison between data

[4] had few exact values, which appear to have been incorrectly added
there, and apparently means to use only 3 "counts" for the inter-set
"> 100", "> 1000" "> 100.000".  Clearly, the last means more-than-one-
hundred-thousand -- because the first clearly means more-than-one-
hundred -- but this was not obvious at first glance, given my
US-training that the period is used for the decimal, not for the
thousands delimiter.

First thing, therefor, I suggest that all period-delimiters on [4]
change to comma-delimiters, to match the first page.  (I've actually
made this change, but incorrect values may well remain -- please read

I think it also makes sense to add "> 10,000", and "> 1,000,000" to the
values here.  Just looking at the DBpedia "actual counts" which were on
the page, it's clear that a log-scale comparing the interlinkage levels
presents a better picture than the three arbitrarily chosen levels.
(Again, I've started using these as relevant.)

Now to the discrepancies.  From [3], I got this line --

    <http://dbtune.org/bbc/playcount/>   BBC Playcount Data      10,000

At first read, I thought that meant 10,000 triples.  But [4] indicated
these external link counts for BBC Playcount Data --

    <http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes>    BBC Programmes     > 100.000
    <http://dbtune.org/musicbrainz>      Musicbrainz        > 100.000

I don't see a way for 10,000 triples to include 200,000 external links.
That means that the first count must be of Entities.  But going to the
BBC Playcount home page [5], I found --

    Triple count                        1,954,786
    Distinct BBC Programmes resources       6,863
    Distinct Musicbrainz resources          7,055

An obvious missing number here is a count of minted URIs -- that is, of
BBC Playcount resources/entities -- but I also learned that BBC
Playcount URIs are not pointers-to-values, but values-in-themselves.
The count is
*embedded* in the URI (and thus, if a count changes, the URI changes!)

    A playcount URI in this service looks like:


    Where <id> is the id of the episode or the brand, as in / programmes
    catalogue, and <k> is a number between 0 and the number of
    for the episode or the brand.

If we accept this URI construction as reasonable (which I don't), it
seems that <k> must actually be a "natural" or "counting" number (i.e.,
an integer greater than or equal to 1).  A value of 0 is nonsensical, as
it would result in a Cartesian data set -- where each and every
Musicbrainz resource gets a Playcount URI for each and every Programme
resource -- and most of these Playcount URIs would have <k> = 0, for
most Musicbrainz resources were not played in most Programmes.

Even if Zero-Play URIs are created only for those Musicbrainz resources
which were played in *some* Programme, for those Programmes where they
weren't played, far more URIs are created than are needed.

I'm hoping that the folks who built this data set are reading, and will
consider restructuring it.  I'd suggest that the URI structure should be
more like --


-- where <id> reflects *either* Programmes *or* Musicbrainz ID (this may
mean further thinking, as I'm not directly familiar with these IDs, and
Programmes may conflict with Musicbrainz), and the count (the *value*)
is returned when the constructed URI is dereferenced.

More baffling, and more troubling, on [3] I found --

    <http://ieee.rkbexplorer.com/>     IEEE     111

-- which purports to be linked out as follows --

    <http://acm.rkbexplorer.com/>        ACM                    > 1000
    <http://eprints.rkbexplorer.com/>    eprints             > 100.000
    <http://citeseer.rkbexplorer.com/>   CiteSeer            > 100.000
    <http://dblp.rkbexplorer.com/>       DBLP RKB Explorer      > 1000
    <http://laas.rkbexplorer.com/>       LAAS CNRS           > 100.000

Looking to primary sources again --

    Current statistics for this repository (ieee.rkbexplorer.com) -

       Last data assertion  2009-02-06 13:28:04
       Number of triples    111442
       Number of symbols    31552
       Size of RDF dataset  8.2M

    Current statistics for the CRS for this repository
(ieee.rkbexplorer.com) -

       Last data assertion   2009-03-25 16:52:19
       Number of URIs        15142
       Number of bundles     25410
       of which active       4874

(Also according to this site, 'A CRS maintaines "bundles" of URIs which
are deemed to be equivalent', which I presume means they are tied by

It seems clear that the initial statistic was reported as thousands, and
should be changed.  However, the out-links still don't add up.  300,000
links (to eprints, CiteSeer, and LAAS CNRS) cannot be made with a third
that many total triples.  A little more digging revealed [6] --

    DBLP RKB Explorer   dblp.rkbexplorer.com       5053 URIs
    ACM                 acm.rkbexplorer.com        2511 URIs
    CiteSeer            citeseer.rkbexplorer.com    888 URIs
    eprints             eprints.rkbexplorer.com     602 URIs
    LAAS CNRS           laas.rkbexplorer.com         93 URIs

-- (sorted by external URI counts, and trimmed to include only those
external sets linked by more than 100 URIs, plus LAAS which apparently
was incorrectly included in the existing list).

Clearly, whomever posted these values to the table read "100.000" to
mean "one-hundred and zero-thousandths" rather than

The correct information for IEEE appears to be --

    <http://ieee.rkbexplorer.com/>     IEEE     111,442

-- which purports to be linked out as follows --

    <http://acm.rkbexplorer.com/>        ACM                 > 1000
    <http://eprints.rkbexplorer.com/>    eprints             >  100
    <http://citeseer.rkbexplorer.com/>   CiteSeer            >  100
    <http://dblp.rkbexplorer.com/>       DBLP RKB Explorer   > 1000

-- (and I've applied these corrections to [3] and [4]).

How many other errors are there in this data?  And how much will those
corrections change the diagrams based upon it?

I'll continue reviewing and correcting things, but thought you should
all be aware that the current table and diagrams may be substantially

Be seeing you,


[1] <http://virtuoso.openlinksw.com/images/dbpedia-lod-cloud.html>
[5] <http://dbtune.org/bbc/playcount/>
[6] <http://ieee.rkbexplorer.com/crs/foreign.php>

A: Yes.                      http://www.guckes.net/faq/attribution.html
| Q: Are you sure?
| | A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
| | | Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

Ted Thibodeau, Jr.           //               voice +1-781-273-0900 x32
Evangelism & Support         //        mailto:tthibodeau@openlinksw.com
OpenLink Software, Inc.      //              http://www.openlinksw.com/
OpenLink Blogs              http://www.openlinksw.com/weblogs/virtuoso/
     Universal Data Access and Virtual Database Technology Providers

This email was sent to you by Thomson Reuters, the global news and information company.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Thomson Reuters.
Received on Wednesday, 1 April 2009 08:09:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:15:56 UTC